Maybe a 1.1.0?

[Alan DeKok]

Nicolas Baradakis <nbk at sitadelle.com> wrote:
> I'd prefer 1.1.0 rather than 1.0.6, even if I don't like branches of
> branches in CVS.

  Yeah, I agree.

> There many, many changes in CVS that may go in 1.1.0. I can't tell
> all of them, but it includes: newer autotools, {Pre,Post}-Proxy-Type
> stanzas, support of ${Cisco-AVPair[n]} syntax, -n and -p options in
> radclient, changes in rlm_attr_filter, new rlm_sql_log & radsqlrelay...

  I'm OK with putting in things that are easy.  If it's hard, let's
punt.

  So newer autotools make me nervous, but much of the rest of what you
said sounds OK.

> It'd be nice to have all of that in 1.1.0, but it'd mean to back-port
> a lot of things. I'm starting to think perhaps it's easier to branch
> CVS head and to downgrade a few files to undo IPv6 work (less than 10
> files?) and some other things we keep for 2.0.

  That scares me even more than back-porting things.

  I think much of the back-porting can be done easily, or simplified
by using monotone.  I'll create the branch off of release_1_0, and
start committing code.

  Alan DeKok.